UK Detention Inquiry: a step in the right direction

A parliamentary inquiry, launched today, will hear from
people directly affected by immigration detention. Will the mass incarceration
of migrants finally be recognised as a political concern worthy of public
scrutiny and debate, asks Eiri Ohtani.

Campsfield immigration detention centre. Photo: Jennifer Allsopp

The UK’s practice of detaining
asylum seekers needs ‘a root and branch review’. These were the words of the Independent Asylum
Commission, a coalition which aimed to take ‘a
fresh and impartial look’ at the UK asylum system and make ‘credible
recommendations for reform’. That was in
2008, six years ago. Since then, the
scandalous nature of immigration detention has become even more visible in
Britain.

In the first half of 2014, we have been greeted with
numerous disturbing events. Christine Case died
in Yarl’s Wood in March, Bruno dos Santos passed
away in the Verne, UK’s newest pseudo-immigration detention centre, in June
and the recent inquest into the death
of American tourist Brian Dalrymple in Harmondsworth found that he died due to
a series of failures of those who were supposed to be caring for him.

Since 2008 when the Commission produced its final report,
there have been other major changes to the detention estate, including the
opening of Morton Hall
Immigration Removal Centre in 2011, the closure of Oakington
in 2010 and Lindholme in 2012, the Coalition Government’s pledge to end
the detention of children and the increasing use of prison bed-spaces for immigration
detention purposes. The Commission’s recommendations were ignored and
forgotten, just like those several thousand people languishing in immigration
detention centres across the UK.

The Parliamentary inquiry launched today picks up the
baton left by the Independent Asylum Commission. The inquiry is jointly led by
the All Party Parliamentary Groups on Refugees and Migration, and marks the first
dedicated Parliamentary inquiry into the impact and implications of the use of
immigration detention. It has cross-party support and seeks to involve NGOs,
legal practitioners, monitoring bodies and, most importantly, those who lives
have been directly affected by detention in its evidence gathering
process. The panel members are Sarah Teather MP, Paul Blomfield MP, Jon
Cruddas MP, Baroness Lister, Baroness Hamwee, Julian Huppert MP, David Burrowes
MP, Richard Fuller MP, Caroline Spelman MP, Lord Lloyd and Lord Ramsbotham, the
very person who insisted on the ‘root and branch review’ of detention back in
2008.

Appropriately, the inquiry goes beyond the scope of
the Commission and looks into detention of not only asylum seekers and refused
asylum seekers but also other irregular migrants who are caught up in the
detention system. And most crucially, its ambition is to look at detention as a
whole.

This is not the first time politicians have shown some
interest in aspects of immigration detention.
Before the last general election, John Bercow MP, Lord Dubs and Evan
Harris MP produced a paper on
alternatives to detention for children in 2006, followed by an investigation
by the Home Affairs Select Committee into detention of children in 2009. The
same Committee has recently summoned the head of Serco, the private security
company managing Yarl’s Wood, to give an account of its handling of the
sexual abuse allegations against its employees at the centre. During the
passage of the Immigration Bill, Baroness Williams led a
debate on indefinite detention in which a number of peers ferociously
voiced their opposition to this practice.

While these sparks of parliamentary activities trigger some
interest, no attempt has been made to join these dots and turn them into a
political concern worthy of proper political debate. These parliamentary
activities tended to focus on specific aspects of immigration detention while
creating the impression that everything else about detention was
acceptable. They always left out the
central question of whether we should be locking up so many people, with huge
costs to their human dignity, health and well-being – as well as the millions
of pounds which are spent year after year to sustain this system – just because
they are in one way or another unwanted or ‘undeserving’.

This is an uncomfortable question that most politicians
would probably rather not deal with in public, particularly when getting
involved with anything that could be seen to be promoting immigrants’ rights is
a potential vote loser. On public opinion, we know very little of how most
people feel about locking up migrants without time limit in their name. In all
likelihood, despite the number of news items, most people simply do not know
what detention really means.

Because of this general refusal by Parliament to engage with
the issue and against the background of the dismal failure by UK civil society
to stop the expansion of the detention estate over the last decade or so, there
is legitimate scepticism over what this new inquiry could possibly
achieve. After all, criticism after
criticism of the UK’s detention practices have fallen on deaf ears. It is not
just NGOs’ and campaigners’ voices that are ignored. Our office shelves are
piled high with inspection reports, whether by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Prisons, Independent Monitoring Boards and the Independent Chief Inspector of
Border and Immigration. These reports repeatedly paint a picture of a system
which is ripe for a wholesale rethink. The most recent example of the government’s
disregard of criticism of its detention practice came just last month. The UK
decided not to respond at all to the criticism by the UN Human Rights Council’s
Committee against Torture report
in 2013, which made several detention-related recommendations, including that
the UK should set a time limit on detention. Clearly, immigration detention is
off limits for the government. And this is what must change.

One group of people who find it especially difficult to be
heard are those who
are directly affected by immigration detention. Each year, we are detaining
enough number of people to fill a large sports stadium, approximately 30,000
people. On any given day, there are over four thousand people locked up in
detention centres and prisons up and down the country. Many of these people are
unceremoniously released back into the community after long periods of detention
as if nothing has happened. They might live in limbo, fearing re-detention
or, sometimes, they might secure their right to stay in the UK. Many thousands
more live in fear of detention. Hundreds
ofcommunity members, families and
friends who support these people must have something they want to say.

In fact, the noble and exciting aspect of this inquiry is
its willingness to hear from the people who are directly affected by detention.
On its first oral evidence day later this month, a small group of people who
are currently detained will be addressing the panel directly. The inquiry panel
members will learn about detention at close range and receive testimony-based submissions
from people who can tell not just what detention does to them but also how
people can remain
in their communities instead of detention whilst going through the
immigration system.

This is the reason why the Detention Forum, a network of
over 30 groups working together to question and challenge detention, welcomes
this inquiry. There has been a huge increase in the number of visible protests
against detention, in
and out of the detention centres, and it’s likely that many groups of
people and individuals are willing to tell their stories and opinions to the
panel. Over the summer, the Detention
Forum is also planning to help groups and individuals who want to submit
evidence but might find it difficult to do so.

Of course, one inquiry is not going end detention. What we
want to see is that the inquiry leaves a legacy that will lead to long-term
parliamentary scrutiny of the use of detention. The inquiry could begin the
political process of rethinking immigration detention, if, and this is a big
if, those of us affected by immigration detention can convince them for the
need for a complete rethink. The final report of the inquiry panel could also be
a huge asset to future detention advocacy.

Someone said recently that politicians, think tanks and
opinion makers are busy talking about what immigrants can do for Britain but
there is little talk about what Britain’s immigration control does to
immigrants. Now, here is an opportunity to at last tell politicians what
detention does to us, immigrants and citizens.

Eiri Ohtani is the Co-ordinator of the Detention Forum in the UK and an independent consultant in the voluntary sector. She has worked with migrants and asylum seekers for over a decade. A graduate of London School of Economics, she also holds postgraduate degrees from the School of Oriental and African Studies and Birkbeck, University of London.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

openDemocracy 50.50

100% independent media covering gender, sexuality and social justice – worldwide. Today we need this more than ever. Every £1 goes into producing and publishing more in-depth and critical journalism, commentary and analysis from women from around the globe. Contribute today.

Tracking the backlash

Growing and globalising networks of conservative and fundamentalist groups are pushing back against our sexual and reproductive rights. 50.50 investigates.

50.50 columnists

Tiffany Kagure MugoAFRO-SEXUALITY SPEAKEASYTalking about sex, sexual identity and sexuality in an easy and lubricated way, taking some of the serious out of the sexual and reproductive health and rights conversation.

Claudia TorrisiL'ITALIA FEMMINISTAMonthly features about gender and human rights in Italy. Reporting on sexism, racism, poverty and other connected systems of oppression. Mediterranean intersectionality.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.